{"id":8078,"date":"2019-11-30T15:10:46","date_gmt":"2019-11-30T15:10:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/?p=8078"},"modified":"2026-02-18T10:00:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-18T10:00:09","slug":"t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/","title":{"rendered":"T0694\/16 &#8211; New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p__large\">Inherency is not relevant to the novelty of a &#8220;purpose-limited product claim&#8221; filed in accordance with Article 54(5) EPC.<\/p>\n<p>The EPO\u2019s Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.09 in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/case-law-appeals\/recent\/t160694eu1.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">T0694\/16<\/a>\u00a0has clarified that claims to purposively selected patients for treatment with a known drug is novel over the prior art treatment of a broader and\/or overlapping patient group with the same drug.<\/p>\n<p>If there is a functional relationship between one or more biomarkers and responsiveness to treatment with a drug, and the claim defines the drug for use in the treatment of a patient defined by said biomarkers, then the presence of this functional relationship confirms that the purposive selection of the patients is an essential technical feature qualifying the claim(s), and this\u00a0must\u00a0be taken into account when assessing novelty.<\/p>\n<p>The rationale for ruling that inherency is not relevant to the novelty of a &#8220;purpose-limited product claim&#8221; filed in accordance with Article 54(5) EPC is neatly summed up in points 5.12-5.14 of T0694\/16:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201c5.12.\u00a0 When deciding on the novelty of claims directed to a new use of a known compound, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has already considered that &#8220;&#8230;a line must be drawn between what is in fact made available and what remains hidden or otherwise has not been made available&#8230;&#8221;. Thus, the relevant issue is what has been made available, and not &#8220;&#8230;what may have been inherent in what was made available&#8230;&#8221; (G 2\/88, points 10-10.1).<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>5.13\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The board in the present composition is of the opinion that this principle applies also to claims drafted under Article 54(5) EPC. The relevance of G 2\/88 to claims directed to the treatment of new patient groups has already been endorsed in T1118\/12 (point 7). It is also supported by the statement in G2\/88 that \u201c\u2026the question of \u201cinherency\u201d does not arise under Article 54 EPC\u201d (i.e. in relation to all aspects of novelty).<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>5.14\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For this reason, the issue of whether patients displaying the markers of claim 1 were present among a population of previously treated patients and were already \u201cinevitably\u201d or \u201cinherently\u201d treated is irrelevant for assessing novelty in the present case\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This decision deviates from the ruling in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/case-law-appeals\/recent\/t960233eu1.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">T233\/96<\/a>, in which it was held:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cIf the use of a compound was known in the treatment or diagnosis of a disease of a particular group of subjects, the treatment or diagnosis of the same disease with the same compound could nevertheless represent a novel therapeutic or diagnostic application, provided that it was carried out on a new group of subjects which is\u00a0distinguished\u00a0from the former\u00a0by its physiological or pathological status (T0019\/86, T0893\/90).<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>This does not apply, however if the group chosen\u00a0<strong>overlaps<\/strong>\u00a0with the group previously treated\u2026\u201d.<\/em>\u00a0(emphasis added) (T233\/96, Headnote).<\/p>\n<h5>How did the board in T0694\/16 justify their departure from T233\/96?<\/h5>\n<p>The ruling in T233\/96 that the claimed group must not\u00a0<strong>overlap<\/strong>\u00a0with the group previously treated was based on interpretation of two prior cases (T19\/86 and T893\/90). The board in T0694\/16 stated that the interpretation of T19\/86 and T893\/90 given in T233\/96 has no basis in the relevant parts of those decisions (points 5-8 of T19\/86 and points 4.2 -4.6 of T 893\/90). (T0694\/16, point 5.19).<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201c5.20.\u00a0 The conclusions drawn in T233\/96 thus cannot be applied to the present case, where the treated patients are identified by clearly testable criteria. Accordingly, novelty may not be denied on the ground that the claimed patient group is embedded and necessarily overlaps with a larger population of previously treated patients and the first condition in T233\/96 is not satisfied.\u201d (T0694\/16, point 5.20).<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Thus, with regard to the novelty of a known drug for use in treating a purposively selected group of patients, the crucial issue is whether this purposive treatment has been made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC.<\/p>\n<p>This decision provides clarity for those working on personalised medicines, reaffirming the EPO\u2019s practice of allowing protection for a diverse range of subject matter in this area.<\/p>\n<p>Even if a drug has been used to treat a general group of patients, an individual that determines how to identify the patients that best respond to the drug could secure a European patent covering the drug\u2019s use in the treatment of such purposively selected patients.<\/p>\n<p>The EPO\u2019s relatively permissive approach in this area contrasts dramatically with the USPTO\u2019s extremely restrictive position on personalised medicine inventions, especially for section101 patent eligibility, in view of the\u00a0<em><strong>Mayo v. Prometheus<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>Supreme Court decision (566 U.S. 66, 132 S. Ct 1289, 2012).<\/p>\n<p class=\"p__medium\">This update was prepared by HGF Patent Director\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/about-us\/our-people\/laurence-gainey\/\">Dr\u00a0Laurence Gainey<\/a>, with input from Partner\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/about-us\/our-people\/douglas-drysdale\/\">Douglas Drysdale<\/a>. If you would like further advice on this or any other matter, please contact Laurence. Alternatively, you can contact your usual HGF representative or visit our\u00a0<a href=\"\/contact\/\">Contact Us<\/a> page\u00a0to get in touch with your nearest HGF office.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Inherency is not relevant to the novelty of a &#8220;purpose-limited product claim&#8221; filed in accordance with Article 54(5) EPC. The EPO\u2019s Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.09 in\u00a0T0694\/16\u00a0has clarified that claims &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":315,"featured_media":9004111222138427,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[497,509],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-knowledge-hub","category-legal-updates","sector-gesundheitswesen","service-patenteinspruche-und-beschwerden","service-patente","sector_groups-life-sciences"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T0694\/16 - New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions - HGF<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"de_DE\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T0694\/16 - New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Inherency is not relevant to the novelty of a &quot;purpose-limited product claim&quot; filed in accordance with Article 54(5) EPC. The EPO\u2019s Technical Board of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"HGF\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-11-30T15:10:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-18T10:00:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@behrooz@tall.agency\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@hgf_ip\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Verfasst von\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Gesch\u00e4tzte Lesezeit\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 Minuten\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e6343663c5ee3e1ccea20cd220f97f30\"},\"headline\":\"T0694\\\/16 &#8211; New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-11-30T15:10:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-18T10:00:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":805,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/11\\\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Knowledge Hub\",\"Legal Updates\"],\"inLanguage\":\"de-DE\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/\",\"name\":\"T0694\\\/16 - New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions - HGF\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/11\\\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-11-30T15:10:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-18T10:00:09+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"de-DE\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de-DE\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/knowledge-hub\\\/legal-updates\\\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/11\\\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/11\\\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/\",\"name\":\"HGF\",\"description\":\"Intellectual Property Rights specialists\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"de-DE\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"HGF\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de-DE\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/hgf-logo-696x696-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/hgf-logo-696x696-1.png\",\"width\":696,\"height\":696,\"caption\":\"HGF\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/hgf_ip\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/hgf-limited-intellectual-property-specialists\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hgf.com\\\/de\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e6343663c5ee3e1ccea20cd220f97f30\",\"name\":\"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de-DE\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d9cf1622c8c99b4c7573ba733a04f6352d3557803ca19afd3e4aafc94d9bc0b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d9cf1622c8c99b4c7573ba733a04f6352d3557803ca19afd3e4aafc94d9bc0b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d9cf1622c8c99b4c7573ba733a04f6352d3557803ca19afd3e4aafc94d9bc0b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/behrooz@tall.agency\",\"Behrooz Saeed\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T0694\/16 - New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions - HGF","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/","og_locale":"de_DE","og_type":"article","og_title":"T0694\/16 - New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions","og_description":"Inherency is not relevant to the novelty of a \"purpose-limited product claim\" filed in accordance with Article 54(5) EPC. The EPO\u2019s Technical Board of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/","og_site_name":"HGF","article_published_time":"2019-11-30T15:10:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-18T10:00:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@behrooz@tall.agency","twitter_site":"@hgf_ip","twitter_misc":{"Verfasst von":"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite","Gesch\u00e4tzte Lesezeit":"4 Minuten"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/"},"author":{"name":"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/e6343663c5ee3e1ccea20cd220f97f30"},"headline":"T0694\/16 &#8211; New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions","datePublished":"2019-11-30T15:10:46+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-18T10:00:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/"},"wordCount":805,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg","articleSection":["Knowledge Hub","Legal Updates"],"inLanguage":"de-DE","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/","url":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/","name":"T0694\/16 - New EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision regarding personalised healthcare inventions - HGF","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg","datePublished":"2019-11-30T15:10:46+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-18T10:00:09+00:00","inLanguage":"de-DE","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de-DE","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/knowledge-hub\/legal-updates\/t0694-16-new-epo-technical-board-of-appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/T069416-New-EPO-Technical-Board-of-Appeal-decision-regarding-personalised-healthcare-inventions.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/","name":"HGF","description":"Intellectual Property Rights specialists","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"de-DE"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#organization","name":"HGF","url":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de-DE","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/hgf-logo-696x696-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/hgf-logo-696x696-1.png","width":696,"height":696,"caption":"HGF"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/hgf_ip","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/hgf-limited-intellectual-property-specialists\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/e6343663c5ee3e1ccea20cd220f97f30","name":"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de-DE","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d9cf1622c8c99b4c7573ba733a04f6352d3557803ca19afd3e4aafc94d9bc0b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d9cf1622c8c99b4c7573ba733a04f6352d3557803ca19afd3e4aafc94d9bc0b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d9cf1622c8c99b4c7573ba733a04f6352d3557803ca19afd3e4aafc94d9bc0b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Akvil\u0117 Lukauskaite"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/behrooz@tall.agency","Behrooz Saeed"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/315"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8078\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9004111222138427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hgf.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}